# In the Interest of D.M.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · April 1, 1999 · 556 Pa. 160

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4956323

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interest of D.M. Appeal of D.M
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 1, 1999
- **Citations:** 556 Pa. 160; 727 A.2d 556; 1999 Pa. LEXIS 1004
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Zappala
- **Judges:** Cappy, Castille, Flaherty, Newman, Nigro, Saylor, Zappala
- **Cited by:** 43 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4956323

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the appellant “overlook[ed] the mandate that reasonable suspicion must be evaluated based on the totality of the circumstances” where his brief was “devoted to citing cases which hold that certain factors . . ., standing alone, are insufficient to constitute reaso…
- finding reasonable suspicion to stop the appellant when he and “companions matched the number of suspects . . . , they matched the race of the suspects; they were the only individuals observed in the vicinity of the robbery; they were seen a mere one-half block away within app…
- finding that appellant waived state constitutional claim because he failed to raise it in his 1925(b) Statement

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent. Under the jurisprudential standards of this Commonwealth, no person, under any circumstance, can be detained and deprived of any right, constitutional or otherwise, simply as a result of race, ethnicity, gender or any other discriminatory classification. The individual rights constitutionally guaranteed to each and every citizen of this Commonwealth preclude the use of such discriminatory classifications as a pretext for intrusion by the state, no matter how laudatory the goals of law enforcement officials and irrespective of *561 the seriousness of the crime under investigation.
In this ease, the police stopped, detained and searched Appellant solely on the basis that he was among a group of black males who happened to be in the vicinity of a recently completed robbery and changed their direction upon encountering the police. Accordingly, I must conclude that this unwarranted police action constituted a violation of Appellant’s right under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4956323. Public record. Not legal advice.